HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/2023 Item 6a, Codron - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: April 4, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Item # 6a – Review of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to
deny application ARCH-0040-2021 at 841 Patricia Drive (APPL-0075-2023)
Discussion
The City Council received correspondence on March 27, 2023 (with minor revisions on
April 3, 2023) from the law firm of Adamski, Moroski, Madden, Cumberland & Green,
representing Eric and Julie Michaels, appellants for Item 6a on the City Council Agenda
for the April 4, 2023 meeting. The following discussion is provided by City staff in an effort
to clarify the focus of the Planning Division’s evaluation of the Architectural Review
application that is the subject of this item, and in response to several points raised in the
correspondence received.
Proposed development of the property at 841 Patricia Drive includes construction of a
single-family dwelling, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and related site improvements.
The proposed project design places the primary dwelling and the ADU on opposite sides
of a creek and includes a bridge across the creek in order to connect these project
elements. The bridge would require a discretionary exception to the City’s creek setback
requirements.
Purpose of the Proposed Bridge
In the Appellant’s correspondence the proposed bridge is described as a small non -
vehicular bridge, necessary, at minimum, to enable maintenance of that portion of the
property by providing access for labor and machinery.
This description of the bridge is not consistent with the project design under consideration,
as depicted in the plans and project description submitted with this application. The
application materials describe and depict a steel-decked bridge that is twelve feet in width
and approximately 55 feet in length, approached by a paved drive from the garage of the
primary dwelling, and connecting to a small, paved area adjacent to the proposed ADU,
on the opposite side of the creek. Concrete abutments are proposed on either side of the
bridge. In appearance and description, the bridge and associated paving are designed
to accommodate small vehicles to allow travel between the dwelling and ADU. Nowhere
in the subject application has the proposed bridge been described as a small creek
crossing for purposes of providing access across the creek for maintenance purposes,
Page 455 of 1367
841 Patricia Drive Appeal Page 2
nor has any less intrusive alternative been proposed to access the eastern portion of the
property for maintenance.
Furthermore, it is observable that the eastern portion of the property has been, and
continues to be maintained, without any currently existing structural crossing of the creek.
Requirement for Biological Survey and Environmental Review
Biological Survey. The appellant’s correspondence states that a biological survey was
prepared for the purpose of ensuring that the bridge would not have significant imp act on
the environment and that, in concluding that the bridge would not have such impacts (with
mitigation measures), it would also serve as the basis for granting an exception from
creek setback requirements. Further, appellant’s letter questions require ment for the
environmental study as part of the City’s consideration of the creek setback exception.
Staff notes in response that a biological survey is required by the City for any creek
setback exception request, as described in Zoning Regulations §17.7 0.030 (G)(4)(d), in
order to provide the basis for evaluating whether one of the required findings for a creek
setback exception could be made. All eight of the required findings must be supported
and “[t]he director…may act to approve an exception to the creek setback requirements
of this section only where the applicant can provide clear and substantiated evidence that
there is no practical way to comply with the provisions and that no other feasible
alternatives will result in better implementation of other zoning regulations or general plan
policies while allowing reasonable use of sites subject to creek setbacks. (Zoning
Regulation §17.70.030(G)(4)(a) [emphasis added]). A biological survey may be
necessary to assess the environmental finding and to determine whether greater than
normal setbacks are required, pursuant to Section 17.70.030 (E)(4). However, a finding
of no significant environmental impacts is not, by itself, sufficient evidence supporting all
of the required findings and ordinance requirements, including the “clear and
substantiated” evidence threshold, above.
Information from the required biological survey is most directly relevant to one of the
required findings (Zoning §17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (i)), regarding minimization of impacts , in
that it helps identify and evaluate potential adverse impacts of the proposed bridge. Staff’s
analysis describes, and attempts to propose mitigations to minimize the apparent impacts
to the riparian corridor from installation and use of the proposed b ridge. However, based
on this discussion, the Planning Commission concluded it could not find that the access
bridge, as designed, would minimize impacts to riparian habitat.
Mitigation Agreement. Furthermore, as discussed in the Background Discussion of the
staff report, environmental documentation (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and Mitigation Agreement signed by the applicant) was prepared in
satisfaction of the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The application did not qualify for an exemption from CEQA
environmental review because of the potential for impact on creek and wildlife corridors
mapped and depicted in the City’s General Plan. The Initial Study resulted in development
of mitigation measures to reduce potential significant environmental impacts. Under
CEQA regulations, a project applicant must agree to implementation of these measures
Page 456 of 1367
841 Patricia Drive Appeal Page 3
through a Mitigation Agreement in order for the environmental document to be deemed
sufficient to support any subsequent review or approval of the development application.
Though pertinent to the requested creek setback exception, consideration and proposed
mitigation of significant potential environmental impacts under CEQA is distinct from and
does not necessarily support a conclusion that an application has satisfied all of the City’s
otherwise required, additional findings for such exceptions. The City’s ordinance and
required findings are not solely concerned with establishing and documenting the
particular significance of environmental impacts, but rather with the minimization of any
impacts to riparian habitat through location and design, including opportunities for wildlife
habitation, rest, and movement. As with the biological survey of the property, the CEQA
environmental documentation does not itself provide a basis on its own for affirmatively
making any or all of the required findings, including §17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (i), and it does
not specifically focus on the demonstrated infeasibility of location and design alternatives,
or the implementation of other zoning or general plan policies.
Reasonable Use and Redesign
The remaining discussion in this memorandum addresses asserted similar development
approvals, whether reasonable use of the property is denied without approval of a creek
setback exception, and whether conformance to creek setback standards can be
achieved by redesign of a project.
Other private creek crossings. Appellant’s letter identifies three existing private creek
crossings in the City. Development of all but one of these properties occurred prior to the
City’s enactment of creek setback standards in 1996, and were therefore not subject to
the required findings that must now be made under cu rrent regulations. Protection of
creek corridors has long been an important policy of the City, but implementation of the
policy has always been sensitive to the preservation of reasonable use of property. It is
clear from the aerial photos provided in the correspondence that all three of these are
examples of limited instances in which any site development could not feasibly occur
without the ability to cross a creek channel. Current creek setback standards do still allow
for exception in limited circumstances, where reasonable use of such properties would
otherwise be deprived.
In this instance, however, as discussed in the staff report for this item, regarding
“Finding 4” (Zoning §17.70.030 (G)(4)(c)(iv)), certain circumstances applying to this
property, such as its shape and size, do differ from those of “typical” lots in this area,
including that the western portion of the site has an area much larger than that typical of
surrounding lots, and considerably larger than the minimum lot area requirement
applicable in the R-1 Zone (Zoning §17.16.020(A)). Given the amount of area available
here for site development, the Planning Commission found that denial of the requested
creek setback does not deprive the property of development with a single -family dwelling
and associated accessory structures, in the manner enjoyed by properties in the vicinity.
Lot Area Useable for Buildings. As to use of the eastern side of the property, although it
is roughly correct that 35% of the total area of the property lie s east of the riparian
vegetation edge, only a small portion of that, no more than about 3,500 square feet of
Page 457 of 1367
841 Patricia Drive Appeal Page 4
area, could be developed. That limited area represents less than 10% of the total site
area (excluding the creek) and is confined to a small strip between a 15-foot-wide sewer
easement and 20-foot creek setback, most of this portion being of insufficient width to
make its development practical.
Lot coverage standards limit the total area of a lot that can be covered by building
footprint. This limit is calculated using the net area of the entire lot,1 and so constraints to
development of certain portions of a lot do not reduce the total potential building footprint
for the lot. Less constrained portions of a lot may still accommodate the same amount of
building footprint allowed by lot coverage standards. In addition, up to 800 square feet of
building footprint for an Accessory Dwelling Unit is excluded from lot coverage
calculations altogether, which further facilitates placement of an ADU building on less
constrained areas of a lot. Given the substantial size of the developable portion of this
property, the Planning Commission could not find that reasonable use of the property
would be deprived without an exception from creek setback standards in th is case.
ADU Placement and Project Redesign. And finally, in light of the considerations above,
lack of a creek crossing might complicate the placement of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
on the portion of the site lying east of the creek, as proposed in Appellants’ plans, but
would not preclude the establishment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit on the property.
Contrary to the assertion that staff’s evaluation of this application has in some manner
focused on an alternative location for an ADU, our evaluation has discussed the
consistency of the project with relevant standards and guidelines, including creek setback
standards, and not the particular location of the proposed ADU itself.
Conclusion
The proposed project design requires a discretionary exception from creek setback
standards in order to accommodate the proposed access bridge across the creek on the
property. The City may only approve such an exception upon making all eight required
findings set out in Zoning Regulations. Staff has been consistent and t ransparent from
the early phases of application review that the application lacks clear and substantiated
evidence in support of the required findings for an exception from creek setback
standards. On review of the application, the Planning Commission concluded that four of
the eight required findings for the creek setback exception could not be made.
As described in the staff report and clarified in this response memorandum, staff
maintains that reasonable use of the property is preserved without approval of an
exception to creek setback standards, and that there is no evidence that a redesign of the
project to conform to creek setback requirements is infeasible. Neither the information
provided by the appellants with their appeal of the Planning Commissio n’s decision, nor
the March 27th correspondence of their representing attorney provides any additional
information or evidence in support of the required findings .
1 As provided in Zoning §17.70.110 (Lot Area), Net Lot Area excludes the creek area. It does, however, include the
creek setback areas beyond the edge of vegetation.
Page 458 of 1367
841 Patricia Drive Appeal Page 5
Attachment
Bridge Drawings
Page 459 of 1367
Page 460 of 1367
340341342343344UPUP350350
SHALLOW
DEEP
SHALLOW
SHALLOWSHALLOW 335335335335340340340
345345345345345350350350350332332333333334334336336337337337337337337338
338338338
339
339339339339339
341341341342342342342343343343344344344346346346346346347347347347348348348348349349349349351351351
351352352352352353353353353 7600 Morro RoadAtascadero, CA 93422(805) 610-1714#20-003 DATE: JUNE 4, 2021Ch conPage 461 of 1367
6
(
01
(
0%$6,62)%($5,1*61
(
01
:
06
:
06
(
0
6
:
06)+6:03$75,&,
$
'
5,
9
(6)+6:06 ( :22')(1&((;,67,1*6+58%6 (
:')(1&( ( %/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(1738%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(1738%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(176859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 3$75,&,
$
'
5,
9
(<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
0,
1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,16+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($$$$5(6,'(1&(
$'8322/*$5$*(&29325&+*5((1+286(6+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($&&(6625<6725$*(75$6+&217$,1(5/2&$7,21:35,9$&<6&5((1($6(0(17
$&&(66%5,'*(($6(0(17
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
( (175<*$7( &2/8016 ( :$7(50(7(5 ( (/(& ( ),5(+<'5$17 ( :$7(50$,1 ( 6(:(50$,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,16,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((7:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7
#5,'*(
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$
$$6859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 2))6(7
2))6(7
2))6(7
$66)/27$5($6)/27$5($&5((.$5($12786(',1/27&29(5$*(&$/& ( %/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(176+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($&&(66%5,'*(($6(0(17
6859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 2))6(7
2))6(7
$'83$7,2678',2(+'(+',QF :HVW0DOO6XLWH%
$WDVFDGHUR&$ S H HGGLH#HKGHVLJQVWXGLRFRP$60,&+$(/65(6,'(1&( 6&+(0$7,&6,7(3/$13$75,&,$5'6$1/8,62%,632&$BUHY
$6$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
$ $6/27&29(5$*(&$/&
$6 $6(1/$5*('6,7((;+,%,7758(1257+*5$3+,&6&$/(758(1257+*5$3+,&6&$/(Page 462 of 1367